ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Affidavit of desistance –– The OCA has taken the right stance in insisting that the present administrative case must proceed notwithstanding complainant’s execution of an Affidavit of Desistance; the filing of the said affidavit by the complainant for alleged loss of interest does not ipso facto result in the termination of the administrative case nor does it render the case mooted; Sy v. Binasing, cited; the Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of its officials and employees and in ensuring the prompt delivery of justice to the people. (Benong-Linde vs. Lomantas, A.M. No. P-18-3842, June 11, 2018)

Quantum of proof –– In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion; hence, respondent Clerk of Court must be exonerated from the administrative charges against her. (Atty. Mahinay vs. Hon. Daomilas, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527, June 18, 2018)

––      In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint; the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence – as opposed to preponderance of evidence – is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases. (BSA Tower Condominium Corp. vs. Atty. Reyes II, A.C. No. 11944, June 20, 2018)

––      Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; “corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others”; petitioner committed a serious lapse of judgment sufficient to hold him liable for simple misconduct; penalty. (Melendres vs. Ombudsman Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194346, June 18, 2018)

Substantial evidence –– In Monticalbo v. Maraya, Jr., the Court ruled that it is incumbent on the complainant in administrative cases to present substantial evidence to support the accusations; failure of the complaint to substantiate his claims will lead to the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail. (Re: Verified Complaint of Fernando Castillo against Associate Justice Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, Court of Appeals, Manila, IPI No. 17-267-CA-J, April 24, 2018)